• 0 Posts
  • 91 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: September 28th, 2023

help-circle



  • Moneo@lemmy.worldtoGames@lemmy.worldIs overwatch 2 really that bad?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    I don’t mean to be a dick but without giving actual reasons all you’re saying is “I preferred ow1”, which is kind of what my original comment was referring to. Tank synergies is definitely something that was lost with ow1, rein/zarya and dive comps were very fun and definitely something I miss. But it was also a major source of balance issues and player frustration.

    Two tank team composition was a consistent balance issue and severely restricted the design of tank heroes. Sigma is a really fun and interesting hero, but when he was added overwatch entered a prolonged two shield meta which was incredibly boring. The devs added a cool hero, and he made the game worse. Not only did he make the game worse, but there was no obvious or easy solution, because sigma wasn’t the problem, two shields was the problem. In my opinion that exemplifies how bad of an issue the game was facing and justifies the changes made.

    There’s nothing wrong with preferring ow1 but the person I responded to called it “a terrible game compared to the original” which is just blatantly incorrect in my opinion.



  • Moneo@lemmy.worldtoGames@lemmy.worldIs overwatch 2 really that bad?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    4 months ago

    In my opinion, anyone saying OW2 is worse than the original is saying this for personal reasons and not trying to be objective. OW2 is, in my experience, much more balanced than OW1. Many of the more frustrating aspects of the game have been fixed or removed, and most of the characters added since OW1 seem fun to play and not frustrating to play against.

    There are very many valid criticisms one can make of Blizzard. The history of being a shitty workplace, the objectively awful decision to make OW2 a sequel, the treatment of Jeff Kaplan by execs, the monetization, and probably more. None of those criticisms (except monetization to a limited degree) have anything to do with whether or not OW2 is a bad game or not.

    But I’m speculating since the person you responded to has not elaborated on any of their views.


  • Moneo@lemmy.worldtoGames@lemmy.worldIs overwatch 2 really that bad?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    Why? I played OW from beta, stopped playing after all the shitty workplace accusations came out, then played again for 10 or so hours last month.

    I didn’t play much competitive (in my recent sessions) but the game seemed like it was in a pretty solid place. The only “major” issue I can think of is that the tank role is incredibly important, which creates a bit of a toxic environment where people are scared to play tank because they get flamed if the team gets rolled. But I think the downsides are worth the benefits, with tank being so important it’s become the core that the rest of the game balances around. Healers have more agency and dealing damage/contributing to elims is a vital part of the role. A lot of the frustrating/cheesy aspects of the game have been removed, scattershot, damage-doomfist, mercy 5-man-res, goats, double shield.

    Again, I took a long break from the game, but before that I clocked a lot of hours in competitive. Personally the game feels about as balanced and enjoyable as it’s ever been.

    Obviously the monetization is gross and that entire side of the game sucks now but that’s an entirely different conversation.







  • The average uplifting story is only effective on people who are mostly doing OK mentally. Those types of people might see a depressing story and wonder why anyone would ever want to consume something so dark and depressing.

    Someone who is depressed will not be able to relate to a typical uplifting story, it will seem unrealistic and naive. A depressing story is meeting them on their level. They will see that someone else understands how they feel and will feel less alone. A depressing story has a chance of affecting a depressed person a giving them hope in a way a regular story does not.

    That is my interpretation of the comic.

    Lots of fiction collapses under examination.

    Yes, over analyzing every little detail and finding flaws in logic is a great way of completely missing the point the author is trying to get across. Your analysis of this comic comes across as borderline satire. There is absolutely no need to examine the physical logic of the comic past the point of “the balloons are metaphors for stories”. There are plenty of ways to analyze and critique the comic, such as examining how well the balloons function as a metaphor, but trying to figure out the internal logic of the world is missing the point completely.